MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414899278 · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaf108

Health conditions that impact fitness-to-practice in physicians: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4414899278 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanya Jackson, Ryan Gerdes, Danika Deibert, Liz Dennett, Ellina Lytvyak, Sebastian Straube

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Quality in Health Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Affect (linguistics)Health careMEDLINEHealthcare system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been over 50 years since health conditions in physicians were first suggested to affect their fitness-to-practice, with consequent impacts on patient safety and patient care. Recent policy positions from physician regulatory bodies express a desire for clarity regarding the impact of these health conditions alongside their standardization in physician regulatory processes. Furthermore, these conditions have not been fully enumerated. Therefore, this scoping review intended to find all health conditions which were identified in the literature to impact physician fitness-to-practice. METHODS: A specialist librarian developed and executed a systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, APA PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (to January 2024). The SPIDER framework was used for inclusion criteria and records were screened independently by two reviewers by title and abstract, and then by full text. Any study addressing a health condition identified as able to affect fitness-to-practice in physicians and surgeons, physician assistants, or medical trainees was eligible. RESULTS: In 403 eligible records of 2542 screened, 4336 total mentions of 203 fitness-to-practice-related health conditions were identified. Conditions relating to mental health issues (32.0%) and drug/substance use (26.0%) comprised more than half of the condition reports. This was followed by neurological conditions (13.2%), medical conditions (12.8%), alcohol use (6.0%), addiction (3.0%), and aging (2.9%) as well as conditions affecting dexterity/fine motor skills/psychomotor performance (2.1%), vision (1.4%), and hearing (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review identified a wide variety of health conditions which could affect physician fitness-to-practice, with a potential impact on patient care and safety. These conditions have persisted in the literature, and we commend them to the attention of practicing physicians, researchers, regulators, and physician health programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.102
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0210.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.678
Teacher spread0.435 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Quality in Health CareSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207